The Overthrow of 3D

I have never made any secret of my dislike of 3D movies. I don’t have any particular problem with them, I don’t get headaches from watching them as many viewers have reported, 3D movies are often so bright and colourful that the 35% loss of light caused by the Real D glasses has never been an issue, I just don’t see the point. Filmmakers who have been enchanted by the medium will argue that it is “more immersive” than 2D, what they don’t seem to realise that a good story is more immersive than a visual gimmick. To exacerbate the problem in a sort of 3D snobbery they refuse to use the horror gimmicks of things flying towards the audience, the one thing 3D does well. The real issue of 3D is the extra cost, charging extra for the 3D glasses is fine but actually charging more for just watching the movie makes no sense to me. The expensive infrastructure needed to show 3D was paid for by the success of Avatar. My local cinema (who charge between £4.50 and £6.85 to see a film depending on when you go) charge an extra £2.10 (£1.50 for Children) for a 3D movie and £0.80 for the 3D glasses. That makes it nearly £10 for a 3D movie at peek times. It would cost a family of four (two adults and two kids) £33.10 (about $55 at current exchange rate) to see a 3D movie.

Despite my feelings for 3D I have actually seen four 3D movies so far this year: Sanctum, Drive Angry, Thor and Priest. But I have also seen three movies in 2D that were available in 3D: Green Lantern, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. The next big release (excluding Harry Potter that I haven’t seen) will be Captain America: The First Avenger. As it was shot in 2D and retrofitted with 3D it will hopefully be screened in both formats. I know which I will be watching.

Working on the assumption that cinemas and studios keep track of 2D/3D split of the box-office take I have a theory that the best way to halt the unnecessary spread of 3D is to choose to watch the 2D version of 3D movies. If a movie is available in both formats but makes more money in 2D it will say far more to the moneymen who run Hollywood than the ramblings of film critics and movie bloggers. So if you feel the same as me about the gimmick that is 3D go and see Harry Potter and Captain America in 2D and send a message to Hollywood. If you are a fan of 3D, go and see them in 3D and thwart my plans.

Update:

Since publishing earlier today Brittani Burnham from Rambling Film tweeted: “Deathly Hallows is on track to break The Dark Knight’s record of biggest opening weekend” and “Only about 43% of Deathy Hallow’s gross was in 3D. This proves more Potter fans perfer 2D. let’s hope this 3D fad dies” these tweets echoed my thoughts so closely I decide to add them to the post. Lets hope this is the start of the revolution. If you still aren’t put off 3D you can even get a pair of Harry Potter Style 3D glasses, a snip at double the price of a regular pair!

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve also been anti-3D since the very beginning and I’m glad to see that it seems to be dying out. I always pick the 2D option if given the choice. If anything I find 3D detracts from the film by drawing your attention to the fact that what you are watching is made up of special effects instead of letting you get lost in the movie world.

While I’m no lover of 3D, I think a 43% 3D return is probably going to be reasonable incentive for studios to keep pushing it– UNLESS statistics also show that 43% is a lower figure than 3D returns from a given period (say, the last year).

I think if studios sacked up and just forked over the cash to film in 3D rather than do terrible post-conversions, it wouldn’t bother me as much. It’s the post-converting that really drags for me.

Brilliant post – I’m surprised Custard hasn’t commented. You get straight to the point and so eloquently. I don’t think anyone can say it better than that – a good story will always be more immersive and 3D is just a gimmick. I’d even take it a touch further – actually write to your local cinemas complaining about the numbers of showing of films that are being shown in both 3D and 2D and the contributing effect this has on them not showing even once smaller releases. I’m actually doing this after years of not complaining about all sorts of things I should have – some of the 3D problems have tipped me over the edge into someone willing to just not bother going if it’s going to be a crappy experience. I’d much rather see Super getting a couple of slots than feel that irritation rise up when you see one film is being shown 8 – 12 times a day split between 3D and normal screenings.

Couple of things I’ve been getting in a tizz about:

They claim to charge more because they need to waste more projection bulb life by making it brighter for 3D and that the technology is different for those screenings. They claim that the glasses make the film soooo dark that yes, they are making the projection very bright so it is only a little dimmer than in reality. What they don’t comment on is whether they change the projection when showing in 2D in a room with 3D projection and so far some information shows that if they show a 2D film in a room using the 2 lens stream projectors for 3D regardless of bulb brightness the projection will look dim, supposedly that is just how it works. I initially didn’t think much about this until I saw Pirates in 2D and it was super dark – in some parts you couldn’t tell what characters were on the screen and in the garden it looked like the middle of the night with no lights on. I thought it might have been a mistake on the part of the production but having seen stills I changed my mind. Personally I do like it to be bright and colourful if that’s what was intended so not getting what I asked for when I’m going into a 2D film bugs me. If I’m going to get the crappy effects of a 3D viewing when I ask for a 2D viewing I think I should pay less than the ticket price, not the same as usual.

Then you’ve the ratio of normal footage vs 3D footage… Priest apparently only has something like 8% 3D in the entire film. On the one hand I don’t think that would be a bad thing if the attitude was different – if it was like smellovision, a gimmick that signals the audience to take part in on the screens that could be good. Some little sign popping up telling you for this scene put your glasses on but the rest you can watch as normal. But making people pay the extortionate rate, where the stupid glasses and actually there’s so little 3D it’s embarrassing? So that’s my vote – actually tell your cinema that you want less screenings of the same movie in favour of more variety, less 3D because you don’t like, and you’ll give them your custom less in general if they start screwing around…

Totally agree with you Andy! I’ve been on the 3D boycott (expect for the midnight Potter screening, as they did not show that in 2D) but I have been back to see it in 2D, which was much better!

This year I have opted to see Thor, POTC, Captain America and the Green Lantern all in 2D. I just really dislike having to wear the glasses whilst watching a film. Give me 2D any day and as you said a good story!

Also not happy to have to pay an extra 1.50 on top of the monthly pass for a 3D film as well.

ok.. yes, 3D was annoying at first. almost every movie was in 3D..
I opted for non-3D versions of movies because it always leaves you with a slight headache..

BUT THEN >> i was at an electronic store and saw a 3D camera (and watched me and my friend on a 3D TV)… I was sold!! haha!!

so I bought the camera and now annoy everyone showing them my 3D videos!!

– though I am still tired of movies in the cinema cashing in on the 3D train.. i guess I am a hypocrite!
anyway,, I made some 3D video and uploaded it to youtube and would be cool if you saw it and let me know if it annoyed you or pleased you ^^